New Delhi: The Supreme Court, which came down heavily on suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma for her controversial comments against the Prophet, asked why no FIR was registered against the anchor of the controversial TV debate show and also questioned the Delhi Police’s handling of the matter. Th apex court, while stating that Nupur Sharma’s “loose tongue” has “set the entire country on fire”, asked the suspended BJP leader to immediately apologise to the entire nation for her remarks.
Refusing to entertain Sharma’s plea for clubbing of FIRs lodged in various states against her for the remark, the bench held that the comment was made either for cheap publicity, political agenda or some nefarious activities.
“She actually has a loose tongue and has made all kinds of irresponsible statements on TV and set the entire country on fire. Yet, she claims to be a lawyer of 10 years standing… She should have immediately apologised for her comments to the whole country,” the court said.
Sharma’s remark against the Prophet, made during a TV debate, triggered protests across the country and invited sharp reactions from many Gulf countries. The BJP subsequently suspended her from the party.
“These remarks are very disturbing and smack of arrogance. What is her business to make such remarks? These remarks have led to unfortunate incidents in the country…These people are not religious. They do not have respect for other religions. These remarks were made for cheap publicity or political agenda or some other nefarious activities”, the bench said.
While refusing to entertain Sharma’s plea for clubbing of FIRs, a vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala allowed her to withdraw the plea. The bench also said that Nupur Sharma’s apology came too late and that too conditionally saying if religious sentiments are hurt and so on. “She should have been on TV immediately and apologised to the nation,” the SC bench said.
The court said her petition “smacks of arrogance” and that she thinks that the magistrate of the country is too small for her. Her lawyer said Sharma was a spokesperson of a political party and her unintentional comments were in relation to a debate.
“If you are a spokesperson of a party, it is not a license to say things like this”, the bench said, adding, “if there was a misuse of the debate, the first thing she should have done was to file an FIR against the anchor”.
To which, Sharma’s lawyer said she had reacted to the debate initiated by other debators and pointed to the transcript of the debate. The bench said, “what was the TV debate for? Was it to fan an agenda and why did they choose a sub-judice topic?”
When her lawyer said she has joined the investigation being conducted by the Delhi Police and not running away, the bench said, “What has happened in the investigation so far? What has Delhi Police done so far? Don’t make us open our mouths? They must have put a red carpet for you.”
After the hearing for nearly 30 minutes, the bench said it is not convinced with her bonafide and refused to entertain the petition.
Nupur Sharma case: Why no FIR against TV anchor, asks Supreme Court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, which came down heavily on suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma for her controversial comments against the Prophet, asked why no FIR was registered against the anchor of the controversial TV debate show and also questioned the Delhi Police’s handling of the matter. Th apex court, while stating that Nupur Sharma’s “loose tongue” has “set the entire country on fire”, asked the suspended BJP leader to immediately apologise to the entire nation for her remarks.
Refusing to entertain Sharma’s plea for clubbing of FIRs lodged in various states against her for the remark, the bench held that the comment was made either for cheap publicity, political agenda or some nefarious activities.
“She actually has a loose tongue and has made all kinds of irresponsible statements on TV and set the entire country on fire. Yet, she claims to be a lawyer of 10 years standing… She should have immediately apologised for her comments to the whole country,” the court said.
Sharma’s remark against the Prophet, made during a TV debate, triggered protests across the country and invited sharp reactions from many Gulf countries. The BJP subsequently suspended her from the party.
“These remarks are very disturbing and smack of arrogance. What is her business to make such remarks? These remarks have led to unfortunate incidents in the country…These people are not religious. They do not have respect for other religions. These remarks were made for cheap publicity or political agenda or some other nefarious activities”, the bench said.
While refusing to entertain Sharma’s plea for clubbing of FIRs, a vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala allowed her to withdraw the plea. The bench also said that Nupur Sharma’s apology came too late and that too conditionally saying if religious sentiments are hurt and so on. “She should have been on TV immediately and apologised to the nation,” the SC bench said.
The court said her petition “smacks of arrogance” and that she thinks that the magistrate of the country is too small for her. Her lawyer said Sharma was a spokesperson of a political party and her unintentional comments were in relation to a debate.
“If you are a spokesperson of a party, it is not a license to say things like this”, the bench said, adding, “if there was a misuse of the debate, the first thing she should have done was to file an FIR against the anchor”.
To which, Sharma’s lawyer said she had reacted to the debate initiated by other debators and pointed to the transcript of the debate. The bench said, “what was the TV debate for? Was it to fan an agenda and why did they choose a sub-judice topic?”
When her lawyer said she has joined the investigation being conducted by the Delhi Police and not running away, the bench said, “What has happened in the investigation so far? What has Delhi Police done so far? Don’t make us open our mouths? They must have put a red carpet for you.”
After the hearing for nearly 30 minutes, the bench said it is not convinced with her bonafide and refused to entertain the petition.
(With Agency inputs)